I disagree with the proposal to allow the secretary of the treasury to arbitrarily change the metal content of coins without congressional approval. Our government is supposed to consist of three co-equal branches and for congress to relinquish another of its prerogatives would make it even less relevant than ever. Still I think it might do so anyway, because it would be a way for them to lose another responsibility, which comes with their authority. Congress is the branch of government closest to the people, its members are elected every two years, so the short term memories of the electorate are less apt to forget what the congressman does. Responsibility means nothing without authority, it seems to me that the logical disconnect facing the people is that they want authority but they do not want to be responsible. They want the title not the office, the power but not the accountability for that power. This is not a partisan complaint, one could list a gamut of politicos and parties that solve one problem and create ten others, I notice that people are tired of it, but they are still confused and keep switching back and forth between the two parties, one that hobbles the eagles left wing, the other that binds the eagles right. I think that the proposal will be an empowerment for the nation to inflate the debt away, but I am against that because those who have profited off that debt have by and large transferred their profits out of the country, runaway inflation will only make our nation more like the rest of the world, it will not solve the intrinsic problems which made the debt. Paraphrasing the commercial, dont worry we will make more, and solving the debt by inflating the currency and eventually demonetising it will only lead to another cycle of the same. What needs to be done is to no longer give away access to one of americas greatest assets, our consumer market, especially since in many cases that access is not reciprocal. Will Rogers wrote of our historical lack of prowess negotiating with other nations, after ww1 at the disarmament conference we had to build a battleship in order to sink it to comply with the treaty. Kissinger was telling the chinese we would not interfere with an invasion of south Vietnam by the north after we pulled out, and this was said while we still had soldiers fighting in that nation. We have a government of the people, most people do not borrow this profligately, while there are some who do, they are a minority. We do not need to station troops all over the world to become the worlds UNpaid policeman. We do not need our elected representatives to attend secret international conferences where there is no reporting on the procedures and there is no transparency in what is being planned and promulgated in those meetings. I do not want our treasury secretary to be able to change the coinage without congressional direction because it is a step more away from representative governance.
I once saw a list of people in office in our higher branches of government. What was "funny" was how many of them were former CEO's and heads of many large military and government funded related companies. Checks and balances? Conflicts of interest?
